FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » dentistry
Coal power and mercury fillings .......
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 159 of 161 [2405 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Next
Author Message
s.c.madden@comcast.net
medicine forum addict


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:17 pm    Post subject: Re: >@>@>@>@>GET MORE CHICKS............LEARN GUITAR............. Reply with quote

Joel344 Wrote:
Quote:
Get More Chicks ... I thought this was an ad for the
American Poultry Association .....

Who cares if dentists can get mnore chicks? Hen's don't have any
teeth. Therefore I do not think this ad is appropriate for this forum.


--
Sue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=15
View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4131
Back to top
Joel M. Eichen
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 4062

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Re: >@>@>@>@>GET MORE CHICKS............LEARN GUITAR............. Reply with quote

Sue Wrote:
Quote:
Who cares if dentists can get mnore chicks? Hen's don't have any teeth.
Therefore I do not think this ad is appropriate for this forum.


Chicks do not have teeth ... babes do .....


--
Joel344
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12
View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4131
Back to top
\"Jan Drew\"
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 353

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:53 am    Post subject: Re: Breakthrough at FDA - hearings on mercury toxicity from amalgam!! Reply with quote

Thanks Again. IIena

Ditto to your note and plea for sanity.

God Bless.

Jan

<Ilena> wrote in message news:qin7321ie47nrf8tlf0a57964frvngsnr4@4ax.com...
Quote:


Note from Ilena: May God protect these brave citizens going against
the 'experts' such as Quackwatch and the Healthfraud groups who have
claimed to KNOW THE 'science' on this issue ...

May sanity prevail at the FDA ...

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

~~~~~~~~~~

Breakthrough at FDA - hearings on mercury toxicity from amalgam!!

http://www.toxicteeth.org/

In a dramatic break from its policy of protecting
pro-mercury dentistry, FDA has announced it will hold public hearings
about "potential mercury toxicity" from amalgam, especially its
"neurotoxicity." In addition, FDA has at last begun to pry control of
this issue away from the American Dental Association -- a
neurology-based advisory committee has been added to hear the evidence
on neurotoxicity. FDA's announcement:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/accalendar/2006/cdrh12518dd09060706.html



Until now, as you probably know, FDA has been the silent
partner to the American Dental Association in protecting (even
promoting) mercury fillings. Disregarding the science and operating
in
secret, FDA said amalgam's mercury caused only "allergies," while it
wrongly gave control of the process to ADA dentists (plainly
unqualified
-- and conflicted as well). But thanks to the involvement of two
high-ranking officials -- Associate Commissioner Randall Lutter and
Associate Commissioner Jason Brodsky -- this may change. These two
Associate Commissioners met with us last fall, agreed to take up the
issue more seriously, and, I guess, read my barrage of letters. So
here's the good news:

* FDA has opened its doors for two days of public hearings, in
Gaithersburg, Md. (a Washington suburb) on Sept. 6 and 7.
* FDA will conduct an inquiry into the "potential mercury
toxicity"
from dental amalgam, "specifically as it relates to neurotoxic
effects."
* The emerging issue becomes not filling teeth but harm to
developing brains of children, to unborn babies, and to all of
us.



What you can do: Write and thank Associate Commissioner
Randall Lutter, RLutter@oc.fda.gov <mailto:RLutter@oc.fda.gov>, and
Associate Commissioner Jason Brodsky, JBrodsky@oc.fda.gov
mailto:JBrodsky@oc.fda.gov>; ask them to keep the focus on mercury
toxicity, and to remove dentists from being in charge of regulating
mercury fillings.



The breakthrough is historic, to be sure. But let's not
be
naÔve . hearings can presage action . or be a classic Washington stall
tactic. To date, FDA has not changed its official position on amalgam
-- no classifying, no pre-market approval, no warnings to pregnant
women
and children, no disclosure of the mercury. While we praise these FDA
officials for introducing the mercury toxicity issue, Consumers for
Dental Choice must still consider a challenge to FDA's regulation of
amalgam.



Still, we must celebrate. By opening up the mercury
toxicity issue, it will be hard for FDA to put that genie back into
the
bottle. For the two-day hearing in September, we must make an
unimpeachable scientific record, bring in substantial public
participation, and encourage widespread press and Congressional
attention.



Charlie, 4/5/06



Charles G. Brown, National Counsel



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Back to top
Joel M. Eichen
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 4062

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:22 am    Post subject: Re: Breakthrough at FDA - hearings on mercury toxicity from amalgam!! Reply with quote

Are you and Ilena going to Washington to testify?


--
Joel344
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12
View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4173
Back to top
Peter Bowditch
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: Re: No To Mercury In Vaccines - Washington Becomes 7th State to Ban It Reply with quote

"Bill" <dentaldoc@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Any opinion on the huge amounts of money that this patient was charged
for only eleven fillings?

It is just more evidence, if any were needed, that "holistic" and
anti-amalgam dentists are not in it for the money, unlike those
dentists who poison people because they are paid by the amalgam
manufacturers and the ADA to do so.

On the other hand, it is a form of theft, and the dishonesty behind
the theft is reflected in the lies about "mercury poisoning" which
were used to facilitate the theft.

Quote:

- dentaldoc
________________________________


Jan Drew wrote:
"Bill" <dentaldoc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143655578.893715.290010@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"john" wrote:

By Kathie Durbin, Columbian
. . . . <snip

Restored:
snip


hair, blood and urine confirmed mercury poisoning. She spent $7,700
having
11 of her mercury-laden amalgam fillings removed and replaced with a
nonmercury composite.
_______________________________


$7,700 for only eleven composite fillings??

Good grief, that's $700 per FILLING! For that amount she could have had
crowns, not just composite fillings!

Let's see . . . at a normal cost of $105 to $200 per composite filling,
depending on size, that might be only $2200 at the HIGH end for her
cost to replace eleven amalgam fillings.

Eleven smaller fillings might be as low as $1155!

Depending on the size of the fillings, eleven replacements with
composite can cost even less than the low $1155 figure, especially if
she bothered to find a dentist with a lower cost structure (perhaps one
who doesn't waste a lot of advertising money).

Using the larger $2200 estimate, she paid $5,500 MORE than necessary to
replace eleven fillings with the white composite.

This kind of horrendous cost difference begs the question of why she
was charged so much more than what is readily available. Perhaps she
went to some sort of "alternative" dentist, who turned out to be more
of a BANKER than a dentist

- dentaldoc

--

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Back to top
eclecticforlife@aol.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Re: No To Mercury In Vaccines - Washington Becomes 7th State to Ban It Reply with quote

This is an outrageous amount for the removal of amalgam and canít be
justified. The truth of Hg toxicity, however, does not change because
someone used it to take advantage of people who are sick; AND does not
justify the defense of continual usage of amalgam.
Back to top
Glad
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

In article <4436CE9B.7030709@earthlink.net>,
dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net says...
Quote:


abc wrote:
I am about to do an implant on #8 (upper molar). I've read up way back
on this newsgroup about pros and cons. What makes my case different is
that I am also simultaneously redoing the existing crowns #7 and #9, so
a bridge would not be an invasive option. My prosthodontist and oral
surgeon recomment an implant; but I get a feeling they always do.
Should I at least consider a bridge instead?

Would an implant save me money, long term? And if it does, one would
expect insurance companies to want to pay for implants, just like they
want to pay for other measures that save them money over the long run,
no? I mean, if it's so good, why don't they cover at least $300 or
something towards an implant, the price they would be forced to cover
anyway if the patient chooses the bridge option? Sounds like good
business to me.

Thanks to all the wonderful dentists there, I am very appreciative of
your time.



There is no one right answer. An implant is better in that the
restoration is self-supporting, and flossing can be done in the
conventional way. But the major selling point is often that the
surrounding teeth don't need to be prepared, and this isn't an issue
here. Furthermore, you already state that crowns on #7 and #9 are being
replaced anyway. If they are in good shape periodontally the only other
reason to do the implant is that it is likely to preserve the bony
ridge--the loss of which can occasionally cause cosmetic problems if you
have a high lip line and show a lot of tooth when you smile. Selling an
implant based on the hypothetical loss of #7 and 9 is really
self-serving of the surgeon.
If #7 and 9 aren't in good shape periodontally it's a completely
different story. But in your case I would have a hard time justifying
an implant.

Plus, if a bridge has been there for a while, then an oral surgeon may
have to do a bone graft before the implant.
Back to top
sjboyle@aol.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:37 pm    Post subject: Re: extraction risks Reply with quote

I wonder why he said to at least have them remove the periodontal
ligament? Does it do any harm to do so?
Back to top
Steven Bornfeld
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:50 am    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

Glad wrote:
Quote:


Plus, if a bridge has been there for a while, then an oral surgeon may
have to do a bone graft before the implant.


Good point--if the decision is made at a later date to do an implant,
it is more likely that a bone graft will be necessary. It doesn't mean
a bone graft won't be necessary even if the implant is done immediately,
but it will be less likely.
Even so, it wouldn't be a decisive factor for me.

Steve
Back to top
Steven Bornfeld
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: extraction risks Reply with quote

sjboyle@aol.com wrote:
Quote:
I wonder why he said to at least have them remove the periodontal
ligament? Does it do any harm to do so?



Reaching waaaaaay back to my embryology, if you look at the periodontal
ligament under a microscope, you see what IIRC are called "epithelial
rests of Mallasez" or something similar. At least theoretically some of
these retained epithelial cells can become cystic. While this is true,
they might as well have become cystic during all the years the tooth has
been in your mouth. While in rare cases I'm sure this is true (there
are cysts which are associated with impacted teeth, but these are
primarily related to the crown, not the periodontal ligament surrounding
the root), and there is a clinical entity called a residual cyst, I can
honestly say I've never seen this happen post-extraction in 30 years in
practice. Furthermore, usually the ligament comes out with the tooth
anyway and curettage isn't necessary--it will just make you more
uncomfortable afterwards.
In some locations it is also risky and can damage other structures.
However, in upper incisors the chance of damage is minimal. If you came
to me with this request and understood the chance of additional pain, I
would be happy to check the socket and curet if I saw any soft tissue
present--no biggie.

Steve
Back to top
Joel M. Eichen
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 4062

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: extraction risks Reply with quote

sjboyle@aol.com Wrote:
Quote:
I wonder why he said to at least have them remove the periodontal
ligament? Does it do any harm to do so?

Yup .....


Joel


--
Joel344
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12
View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4182
Back to top
Joel M. Eichen
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 4062

PostPosted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

I vote for bridge ....


Joely






abc Wrote:
Quote:
I am about to do an implant on #8 (upper molar). I've read up way back
on this newsgroup about pros and cons. What makes my case different is
that I am also simultaneously redoing the existing crowns #7 and #9,
so
a bridge would not be an invasive option. My prosthodontist and oral
surgeon recomment an implant; but I get a feeling they always do.
Should I at least consider a bridge instead?

Would an implant save me money, long term? And if it does, one would
expect insurance companies to want to pay for implants, just like they
want to pay for other measures that save them money over the long run,
no? I mean, if it's so good, why don't they cover at least $300 or
something towards an implant, the price they would be forced to cover
anyway if the patient chooses the bridge option? Sounds like good
business to me.

Thanks to all the wonderful dentists there, I am very appreciative of
your time.


--
Joel344
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel344's Profile: http://dentalcom.net/forum/member.php?userid=12
View this thread: http://dentalcom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4183
Back to top
whodunit
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Quote:


Glad wrote:


Plus, if a bridge has been there for a while, then an oral surgeon may
have to do a bone graft before the implant.


Good point--if the decision is made at a later date to do an
implant, it is more likely that a bone graft will be necessary. It
doesn't mean a bone graft won't be necessary even if the implant is done
immediately, but it will be less likely.
Even so, it wouldn't be a decisive factor for me.

Steve

Out of curiosity, what all is involved with a bone graft? I'm going to

need one when my braces are finished (whole reason why I'm doing this in
the first place, because I'm losing bone where I don't have a permanent
tooth)--I've done a web search but really can't find a simplified
explanation. How much pain is involved? Is it oral surgery that takes
awhile, or something else?

TIA,
Carolyne in TX
Back to top
Mark & Steven Bornfel
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 888

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

whodunit wrote:
Quote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Glad wrote:



Plus, if a bridge has been there for a while, then an oral surgeon
may have to do a bone graft before the implant.



Good point--if the decision is made at a later date to do an
implant, it is more likely that a bone graft will be necessary. It
doesn't mean a bone graft won't be necessary even if the implant is
done immediately, but it will be less likely.
Even so, it wouldn't be a decisive factor for me.

Steve

Out of curiosity, what all is involved with a bone graft? I'm going to
need one when my braces are finished (whole reason why I'm doing this in
the first place, because I'm losing bone where I don't have a permanent
tooth)--I've done a web search but really can't find a simplified
explanation. How much pain is involved? Is it oral surgery that takes
awhile, or something else?

TIA,
Carolyne in TX


It is surgery. However, often it is done at the time of extraction, so
the additional pain from the grafting procedure probably isn't much.
The only reason I'm waffling in my answer is that it depends upon how
large an area needs to be grafted, and how much gum tissue needs to be
reflected to place it.
Most of the time grafting is done with exogenous materials--IOW, the
bone is not harvested from your own body. If the bone has to be
harvested from your jaw, you of course have that additional surgical
site, which I hear usually winds up hurting more than the recipient
site--this is probably the biggest reason other materials (freeze-dried
bone, fake bone) are used.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Back to top
whodunit
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Implant vs. bridge Reply with quote

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
Quote:
whodunit wrote:
Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Glad wrote:



Plus, if a bridge has been there for a while, then an oral surgeon
may have to do a bone graft before the implant.



Good point--if the decision is made at a later date to do an
implant, it is more likely that a bone graft will be necessary. It
doesn't mean a bone graft won't be necessary even if the implant is
done immediately, but it will be less likely.
Even so, it wouldn't be a decisive factor for me.

Steve

Out of curiosity, what all is involved with a bone graft? I'm going to
need one when my braces are finished (whole reason why I'm doing this in
the first place, because I'm losing bone where I don't have a
permanent tooth)--I've done a web search but really can't find a
simplified explanation. How much pain is involved? Is it oral surgery
that takes awhile, or something else?

TIA,
Carolyne in TX


It is surgery. However, often it is done at the time of extraction,
so the additional pain from the grafting procedure probably isn't much.
The only reason I'm waffling in my answer is that it depends upon how
large an area needs to be grafted, and how much gum tissue needs to be
reflected to place it.
Most of the time grafting is done with exogenous materials--IOW, the
bone is not harvested from your own body. If the bone has to be
harvested from your jaw, you of course have that additional surgical
site, which I hear usually winds up hurting more than the recipient
site--this is probably the biggest reason other materials (freeze-dried
bone, fake bone) are used.

Steve

It's a small site, just the place where I should have had a permanent

tooth (but was born without)--I'm planning to get an implant because a
bridge would not help encourage new bone growth (or so I've been told).
Since the 2 surrounding teeth are leaning over, I've needed to get them
straightened with the braces first.

Is it true they use harvested cadaver bone? What kind of dangers are
possible with that? I remember reading about some illegal harvesting
done awhile back (Alistair Cooke and others) and that disease testing
wasn't done in many of those cases, does the dentist just assume the
material to be grafted is of pure quality?

I'm not against using cadaver tissue (my late sister had a life saving
kidney transplant from a cadaver years ago), but I sure don't want to
take unnecessary chances on catching something really bad if this is
an unmonitored type of procedure!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 159 of 161 [2405 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:16 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » dentistry
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Candid Bush and Blair- When two power-blind dunces have a... kathleen lyme 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:11 pm
No new posts The TRUTH Thimerosal IS 49.6% mercury by weight \"Jan Drew\" nursing 15 Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:50 am
No new posts Dentistry scams exposed: Mercury fillings and unnecessary... \"Jan Drew\" dentistry 0 Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:36 am
No new posts DIY, fillings, materials - Questions Aria dentistry 3 Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:57 pm
No new posts Thimerosal quotes (mercury vax ingredient) john nursing 5 Sun May 28, 2006 7:46 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0321s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0131s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]